Proposal or Discussion Paper:

If this goes forward, should it be as a proposal or as a discussion paper?

If we're not yet sure whether we want to go with Option 1 or Option 2, I would think we'd want to go with a discussion paper. Steve Kelley (CC:DA) 7/23/2013

There are precedents for a revision proposal giving options. So long as the options are fully documented (as they are in this case), the JSC can express a preference and then work with the preferred option to produce a final revision. I believe that the JSC would like to have this issue resolved, if possible, at the November meeting. I would therefore recommend that we submit this as a proposal -- even if we decide to present both options.
-- John Attig (7/24/2013)

Send as a proposal--Dominique Bourassa, CC:DA, July 23, 2013

I think there are a number of thorny issues still to resolve, but perhaps there's no harm in sending it forward as a proposal. -- Francis Lapka, RBMS Liaison, July 24, 2013

Instructions, vocabulary, or both?

Option 1 continues to present a set of instructions. Option 2 defines a vocabulary. Does CC:DA want to submit both options or just one?

I would favor sending both options. First, because I can't quite decide between the two, and second, and more importantly, because John Attig recommends it. Steve Kelley (CC:DA) 7/23/2013

Tinted and toned as colour content:

Is there agreement to the narrow definition given here? Is there any interest in expanding the definition?

I favor the narrow definition. I know that technically the photo is no longer black & white if it's tinted/toned, but it's tinted/toned on top of the underlying black & white photo. I favor not being too literal about black & white being colors. Black & white refers to a type of photography that pretty much everyone can understand, even if it actually results in a range of black, grays and white (when my niece was young she referred to black & white movies as "gray & white"). Steve Kelley (CC:DA) 7/23/2013

The narrow definition is fine with me. Like Steve, I favor "not being too literal." --Dan-Lipcan (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2013 (PDT) (ARLIS/NA)

I think the narrow definition is problematic, in part because I think tinted and toned describe the process, not the color. But even if we retain these instructions in the element for color, I worry that you have to go to the glossary to note that the terms "tinted" and "toned" apply only to black and white film, but not to other production processes. Also, the glossary definitions make reference to film only; does this mean the terms are not applied to photographic *prints*?

I agree completely with these statements in the report: "A black and white image that has been tinted is no longer black and white. If we are attempting to describe its colour content, then describing it as “black and white” seems inappropriate and misleading." This element should record the color of the resource *as issued* (or as produced). If it was issued in color, then "black and white" is not appropriate. If part of the production process involved black and white film, then this information should be recorded in a separate element. -- Francis Lapka, RBMS Liaison, 7/24/2013

Tinted and toned as production method:

Add a separate section (3.9.4) for Production Method for Tinted and/or Toned Images or leave it in Colour Content and raise the issue for JSC discussion?

I think most catalogers are going to think of tinting/toning as a matter of colour, not production method, and I definitely think that users of records will be looking for it as colour related information. I would leave it in Colour Content and raise the issue for JSC discussion. Steve Kelley (CC:DA) 7/23/2013

I favor leaving it in Colour Content and raising the issue with the JSC. --Dan-Lipcan (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2013 (PDT) (ARLIS/NA)

I favor treating tinting and toning as production methods (because they *are* production methods and *do not* record the hues or colors present in the resource). A separate section (3.9.4) would be appropriate. -- Francis Lapka, RBMS Liaison, 7/24/2013

Grey scale:

Retain this with the limitation to digital images?

I would favor retaining it with limitation to digital images. Steve Kelley (CC:DA) 7/23/2013

Text and background:

Should this be generalized further by removing “for a resource intended for persons with visual impairments”?

I would favor leaving the qualification, because that's when it's really important to know that information about the resource. I doubt the usefulness of requiring catalogers to record every text/background color combo used for style purposes. Steve Kelley (CC:DA) 7/23/2013

I wouldn't want catalogers to think they'd need to record every instance of alternate text/background colorings (this is an Alternative, after all), but I can imagine a situation where one might want to record foreground/background colors of textual content because the resource was designed that way for aesthetic purposes. To my reading, this instruction explicitly prohibits that option. I think it should be generalized; could the wording be adjusted to include the typical "if considered important for identification or selection" phrasing, and would that cover appropriately resources for the visually impaired? --Dan-Lipcan (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2013 (PDT) (ARLIS/NA)

I agree with Dan: I think the instruction should be generalized with the wording "if considered important ...". I can imagine cases (for example some artists’ books) where it would be important to record such information. –Dominique Bourassa, CC:DA, July 23, 2013

Dan raises an interesting question. I wonder, however, if such circumstances might already be accommodated by 7.17.1.4 Details of Colour Content. If so, the scope of this element should probably be limited to resources intended for users with visual impairments. -- Francis Lapka, RBMS Liaison, July 24, 2013.

General comments about this proposal

A typo in the credit for the definition of "colour": Thurstan, not Thurston. --Robert J. Rendall (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2013 (PDT)

Typos in the first 7.17.1.4 example, both options: "black-and-white" has retained its hyphens.
--Dan-Lipcan (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2013 (PDT) (ARLIS/NA)

The first example in 7.17.1.4 is the only one followed by the phrase “Colour content recorded as: colour, black and white.” I think other examples, such as the 4th one, should be followed by this phrase or the phrase has to be removed from the first example. It is also unclear if expressions such as “some color” or “chiefly colour” are enough in themselves or if they need to be followed by some indication of black and white content—Dominique Bourassa, CC:DA, July 23, 2013.

7.17.1.1. states “Colour content does not include matter outside the actual content of the resource (e.g. the border of a map, the cover of a book).” I am wondering if there could be an alternative to record this type of information. The BNF, for example, records this type of information. Their records say things such as “ill. en noir et en coul., couv. ill. en coul.” I am sure some international agencies would like to have the possibility to continue to record the color content of covers.—Dominique Bourassa, CC:DA, July 23, 2013.

For the inconsistencies mentioned in the first paragraph (Background), it may be worth mentioning that the Machine Actionable Data task force noted a related inconsistency: “The TF has given cursory consideration to the possibility of treating Illustrative Content (RDA 7.15) as extent; the extent-like quality of this element is especially apparent when the option is taken to quantify the illustrative content (e.g. “48 illustrations”). The element currently attempts to cover two functions: to indicate the secondary character of an expression with primary character that is not “image”, and to indicate the extent of that secondary content. Including this element in the extent revision may correct some current inconsistencies (e.g., why is the word “illustration” used for the secondary character when the same character as primary is termed “image”?).” -- Francis Lapka, RBMS Liaison, July 24, 2013